• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Stimulants of the Future

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smyth said:
Im not sure that duration of action can be directly linked to addiction as such, although it does have a part to play in determining the 'rush' factor.

Im thinking your theory is floored because that weould be like saying methadone has "little abuse potential" which clearly is of questionable validity.

My view is that people take stimulants to get a surge in monoamines and that this is where the euphoria part comes from. Compounds that have a slow onset of action and are too 'lazy' fail in this regard. But this is not to say that compounds with a long duration of action or ones that are a bit slow off the starting blocks are not without their potential. I think that Indatraline may well have abuse potential which might be one of the reasons why it would not be a good candidate for cocaine addiction.

In general, drugs with fast onset and short duration of action have higher abuse potential in the short term, (ie abuse potential of fentanyl>heroin>methadone) but this does not remain true when the drugs are used for a long period of time, indeed I've been told that methadone maintenance can be even more difficult to give up than heroin, once the person has been on the methadone program for a long time. However the theory would predict that fentanyl will be easier to get hooked on in the first place.

I'm not sure how generally this holds true in real-world situations. Personally I found methamphetamine to be much more addictive than cocaine, even though it has much longer duration of action, but I think speed of onset and how intense the initial "rush" from the dopamine peak feels has a lot to do with how addictive a particular substance is, hence why different routes of administration also often tend to show varying abuse potential (IV>IM>SC>smoking>snorting>eating), even where the same drug is being used.
 
Pretreatment with SSRIs blocks the effects of MDMA by preventing it from entering the neuron through the 5HTT (and hence stopping the MDMA from reaching either of its two targets inside the cell). However if you take an SSRI just as the MDMA is starting to wear off, it can indeed block the reuptake of the serotonin the MDMA has dumped in your brain and make the serotonin peak last much longer

What are the two targets of MDMA inside the cell?

SSRI can potentiate MDMA? Got any citations for that? The half-life of 5-HT clerance is like 10-100 seconds. If you slowed clerance and release at the same time, you're boost should only last for a couple of minutes.
 
The two targets of MDMA are the 5HTT transporter on the cell surface and the VMAT-2 transporter on the surface of storage vesicles. I'm not sure that the exact binding domain on either protein has been established.

Taking SSRIs when an MDMA pill is wearing off does indeed produce hot flushes, anorexia and insomnia for 2-3 days afterwards which would presumably be attributed to excess serotonin levels, but I'm not sure that this has been confirmed by any formal research. Although admittedly these symptoms could be from other causes than serotonin, a serotonergic cause would seem likely when they are produced by co-administration of two drugs that are known to be primarily serotonergic in action. Certainly there would seem to be some interaction between the two drugs that is producing a long-lasting elevation of serotonin levels, regardless of the mechanism.

Under what circumstances is the half-life of 5HT clearance 10-100 seconds? Normal (drug-free) conditions with a functioning 5HTT reuptake transporter to suck it back up out of the synapse? I would imagine the half-life is longer when the only route of clearance is passive diffusion and degradation by MAO (which is also partially inhibited due to the slight MAOI effect of the MDMA). Or maybe the SSRI and MDMA just have some pharmacokinetic interaction which extends the period that serotonin is released for.
 
IPAMP,N-Isopropylamphetamin.Appears like a hole.I guess if ethyl and propyl are active,the isopropyl is active as well.Judging by this paper I guess a 40mg dose:

"Deuterium isotope effects in the metabolism of N-alkyl-substituted amphetamines in man. Vree, T. B.; Gorgels, J. P. M. C.; Muskens, A. Th. J. M.; Van Rossum, J. M. Dep. Pharmacol., Cathol. Univ. Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Neth. Clinica Chimica Acta (1971), 34(2), 333-44. CODEN: CCATAR ISSN: 0009-8981. Journal written in English. CAN 77:106 AN 1972:400106 CAPLUS

Abstract

Comparison of the excretion rates of amphetamine (I) [2706-50-5], methylamphetamine [4298-16-2], isopropylamphetamine [33286-26-9], and dimethylamphetamine [33286-27-0] with the respective deuterated compds. by humans given oral doses of 7-40 mg indicated that the tertiary hydrogen was involved in the enzymic N-alkylation and deamination of these compds. "


Not much known about the t-Butyl !?
 
The N-isopropyl compound has more beta-adrenergic activity (pounding heart etc) so isn't the first choice when it comes to N-alkylated amphetamines.

Personally, I'd go for N-allylamphetamine as it's likely to be very similar to N-propylamphetamine
 
4-Methylaminorex

Riemann Zeta said:
Phenmetrazine is too hard to synthesize. It requires nor-ephedrine, which was banned in 2000. Same goes for 4-methylaminorex (4-MAX), which is why both are as rare as it gets in the drug world.

Since when did 4-methylaminorex become hard to synthesize?
Oh no, they banned some pills, we're screwed.. you must be kidding right?

Might I introduce you to the wonderful and exciting world of clandestine chemistry?
No pills, just lots of chems.

The notion that 4-MAR is a difficult synth compared with other drugs is a complete myth, quite a common one too, the same ill-advised statements being repeated over and over again all over these threads by people who actually have no clue what they are talking about.

The 4-MAR synth is a piece of cake. Noone uses highly toxic cyanogen bromide to make that anymore, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get with the times or just has no clue, except they have proven themselves able, without even leaving their chair, to use an internet search engine to dredge up Eleusis's dated 4-MAR procedure. As for said procedure, every underground chemist knows isn't worth a dime btw. Its outdated, dangerous and of no use to anyone.
Printing off such internet "recipes" is hardly what one would call real research, the valuable chemical procedures are to be found in a good library, not in Erowid's Vaults.
Instead of cyanogen bromide, relatively nontoxic and easily made potassium cyanate is now used as part of a simple one pot synthesis (aka the famous 4-MAR Shake'n Bake synthesis) with very high yields.
In recent years underground chemists have developed new procedures, quite unlike most of the aforementioned obsolete & dangerous 4-MAR recipes floating around the web. Things have come along way in the last 10 years, clandestine chemists have made significant breakthoughs and I assure you the best procedures, NEVER get put on the web since doing so would mean swift controls placed on the precursors.
The main precursor for 4-MAR is still PPA (phenylpropanolamine), though synthesizing it is NOT exactly a great endeavour, and it makes absolutely no difference that PPA has been removed from cold remedies by the FDA !! That would only affect the reject good-for-nothing pill cooks, and is hardly going to affect the actual clandestine chemists who are the ones, aka "Bees" , doing all the work. The 4-MAR synth is a snap.

PPA can be made extremely easily from just benzaldehyde and l-alanine with 15% yield of PPA (akabori reaction), though low yielding it is a straight forward reaction and easy to do.
The best process that is used to synthesize PPA is almost exactly the same as that used to produce phenyl-2-nitropropene (phenyl-2-propanone precursor) except a slight variation (adding NaOH) in 2 simple process stages yields the PPA with 70% yields. So you can't say PPA is inaccessible !!!!!!!!!!!

The aforementioned phenyl-2-propanone precursor (phenyl-2-nitropropene) is produced by a reaction known as the "Knoevenagel Condensation" , which is the preferred route to large scale phenyl-2-propanone (#1 Meth & Amphetamine precursor). Especially for the big labs !

Which means of course.....: that if you are producing Meth, you are statistically most likely to be producing it from phenyl-2-propanone (& methylamine), which was probably produced via the Knoevenegal condensation (using benzaldehyde & nitroethane), which rather conveniently, is precisely the reaction thats extremely EASILY adapted to yield phenylpropanolamine (in 2 stages) instead of the phenyl-2-nitropropene !! The PPA variation is actually easier and requires cheaper chemicals than the phenyl-2-nitropropene route used for meth !
If you wont listen to me, go research the chemistry for yourself. Check out the PPA & ephedrine synth on Rhodium's page to get you started.

So, basically if they can make meth they can probably make PPA too, and without all the hassle of converting the phenyl-2-nitropropene to phenyl-2-propanone, or playing with listed methylamine with subsequent reduction of the schiff's base to form meth, etc etc etc
The workup from PPA to 4-MAR is so simple its stupid, literally. If you've acquired PPA, then you have 4-MAR. Compared to the work involved in producing the PPA, the conversion step(s) to 4-MAR (by comparison) requires neglible effort.

4-methylaminorex (freebase or salt) is actually easier, cheaper & quicker to produce than crystal methamphetamine.

The problem is, there just aren't large scale labs producing it since they are busy 24/7 producing meth.

Any mention of the 4-MAR synth being too difficult is pure fantasy, and I've read the same lie in no fewer than 10 separate posts just in the last hour while researching 4-MAR...
Such misinformation is rife.
Its all too tempting for a novice chemist to simply look at the oxazoline ring (without getting off his lazy butt and doing some actual research) within the 4-MAR molecule and talk all day about how difficult it is to produce due to the complexity of having to painstakingly "construct" the oxazoline ring, nonsense - its simple.
PPA & potassium cyanate (simple 2 hr reflux), followed by simple acid hydrolysis and Voila ! PPA to 4-methylaminorex, just like that. From start to finish, 4 hrs and can be scaled up to any size.
This ain't rocket science, so why all the confusion?
These procedures ARE actually on the web, if in any doubt go check them out for yourself.
The hive files are a good place to start.


4-MAR isn't hitting the streets in bulk for one simple reason: MONEY.
Nothing to do with the chemistry. Meth is what the junkies want, meth is what they shall have.

As for the most promising candidate for the stimulant of the future?
If all those presently operating the clandestine labs were to suddenly decide they can make more money from producing 4-MAR instead, they could be turning out the same weekly tonnage of 4-MAR within a short while if they really wanted to.
4-MAR is one hell of a drug, far more potent than meth, most would agree that overall its simply a superior drug, and it seems to be growing in popularity all the time.

I'm guessing that 4-MAR is here to stay ;)


MODS: I've made every attempt to limit chem synthesis reference(s) as much as possible, synths mentioned are simply there to help clarify the logic in the point I'm trying to present. Plz feel free to edit/delete/ if/where necessary.
 
For a matter of fact you have no clue. Sorry. Thats not so easy and without pointing out all whats wrong what would just be about everything lets just say this:
The reactions for PPA mentioned produce ALL a mixture of razemic norephedrine and norpseudoephedrine. The convient "shake and bake" synthesis calls for PPA which is l-norephedrine in this context.
And?
Says that only a quarter of what you put in will get 4-MAR so you are lucky.

Not so good.

As told, you have no clue, sorry.
 
fishinabottle said:
For a matter of fact you have no clue. Sorry. Thats not so easy and without pointing out all whats wrong what would just be about everything lets just say this:
The reactions for PPA mentioned produce ALL a mixture of razemic norephedrine and norpseudoephedrine. The convient "shake and bake" synthesis calls for PPA which is l-norephedrine in this context.
And?
Says that only a quarter of what you put in will get 4-MAR so you are lucky.

Not so good.

As told, you have no clue, sorry.


IIRC, the 4-MAR shake'n bake procedure hasn't been updated in years, and the said posts discussing the norephedrine isomerism within that thread were based on theory alone. I also believe that they were aiming to produce trans-4-MAR, however this isn't necessary since all resulting 4-MAR isomers are active.
The main point in my original post is the large scale synth of PPA, there are many ways to convert the PPA into 4-MAR, the shake'n bake was just one convenient well known EXAMPLE. The conversion step still remains a low level effort regardless of any isomers that were to prove incompatible with the shake'n bake cyanate one-pot synth..

Base your judgement on actual trials instead of mere anecdotal conjecture.

The isomerism was a topic of some discussion, but limited to theory.
The yield isn't 25% if using racemic norephedrine.

This isn't theory (sense the tone..), and reportedly yields over 70%. If you think otherwise, tell that to the chemists making such weird claims.

Also, there are many variations of the so called shake'n bake, the shake'n bake is notable since its a one pot synth, handy for the individual cook. Whether it's a one pot synth or not is irrelevant as far as large scale drug manufacturing is concerned. Obviously any large scale manufacturing isn't going to be a "one pot synth". The hive 4-MAR cyanate thread was given as a web reference simply to corroborate the general method I was referring to.

For arguments sake, even if the racemic feed where to reduce yields, then the procedure would simply be adjusted accordingly and ultimately it wouldn't be a one pot synth anymore, so what's your point? No point at all, you're just being a smartass and thats why I can't be bothered.
I'm not prepared to waste my time debating whether or not something works since its highly unlikely the scope of discussion will ever progress beyone the theory and into the experimental realm.

Besides, if the dialogue I've seen so far is any indication of whats yet to come, then I doubt I'll be hanging around. : )
I've every confidence in the accuracy of the information given, and see nothing to gain by arguing with complete strangers.
Peace. =D
 
Last edited:
mad_scientist said:
In general, the abuse potential of dopamine reuptake inhibitors depends on how they affect the pattern of dopamine release and reuptake. Compounds that inhibit reuptake and also induce release of dopamine (such as methamphetamine or phenmetrazine), or compounds that inhibit reuptake but have no effect on release (such as cocaine, CFT, amineptine or methylphenidate) tend to be addictive drugs with potential for abuse in humans. On the other hand, compounds that inhibit reuptake but also inhibit release of dopamine (such as modafinil, mazindol, bupropion and vanoxerine) have mild stimulant effects and little abuse potential.

i thought the DARI's were the same mechanism : i thought it was that modafinil and bupropion are weak but long acting DARI's.

and i thought that why cocaine is more addictive than methylphetnidate is because it is a SSRI that causes even more dopamine release compared to 'straight' DARIs
 
The isomerism was a topic of some discussion, but limited to theory.
The yield isn't 25% if using racemic norephedrine.

This isn't theory (sense the tone..), and reportedly yields over 70%. If you think otherwise, tell that to the chemists making such weird claims.
For the potassium cyanate route one needs l-norephedrine - and thats the PPA used in pills in the USA.

Nobody doubts that making 4-MAR from extracted PPA pills works in good yields.

Everything told about the easiness of PPA production is just not really true, for the procedures are not so simple and the result of the presented pathways is always a racemic mixture from which only 1/4th is useable. And thats that. Except you want to work with cyanogen bromide then it would be 50%.
 
fishinabottle said:
For the potassium cyanate route one needs l-norephedrine - and thats the PPA used in pills in the USA.

Nobody doubts that making 4-MAR from extracted PPA pills works in good yields.

Everything told about the easiness of PPA production is just not really true, for the procedures are not so simple and the result of the presented pathways is always a racemic mixture from which only 1/4th is useable.

For arguments sake, lets just say you only want to use one specific isomer only such as with trans-4-MAR, thats not a problem no matter which isomer is desired - so why pretend like it is? Amino alcohols are versatile, useful compounds that have more uses in drug chemistry, to even bother to list.

There is no such thing as "unusable" PPA, for instance its very easily converted to P2P with high yields, via a simple acid hydrolysis using ZnCl2 as catalyst (iirc Rhodium mentions this as well). And before you mention it, I can assure you that this reaction is not stereospecific, it gets turned into ketone with around 80% efficiency.

That P2P would then go on to produce the meth with no reduction in overall yields since the PPA to P2P conversion step is just as efficient as the phenyl-2-nitropropene to P2P conversion usually used in meth synthesis. All large scale drug labs currently producing P2P via the phenylnitropropene could easily go the PPA route intead, using the desired isomer and turning the remainder into P2P and then onto meth i.e. business as usual.

Alternatively the "unusable" isomers could simply be REDUCED straight to amphetamine via any number of routes (again, non-stereospecific), well within the capacity of large scale drug labs.
So basically fishinabottle, even in the WORSE case scenario that you are suggesting, the "disaster" that lies ahead is merely a hybrid lab producing both 4-MAR & meth, simple and easy.
 
Last edited:
I'm not prepared to waste my time debating whether or not something works since its highly unlikely the scope of discussion will ever progress beyone the theory and into the experimental realm.

I know it fuckin' will not - did you read the bit about no discussion of synthesis? There are other sites that deal with drug synthesis, but Bluelight isn't one of them.

Anyone attempting to continue discussing synthesis will be dealt with...
 
MOPPP and PPP

Hmm,seems other propiophenons are known,haven't read anything here!?

"Studies on the metabolism of the new pyrrolidinopropiophenone designer drugs PPP and MOPPP. Springer, Dietmar; Peters, Frank T.; Fritschi, Giselher; Maurer, Hans H. Hessisches Landeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden, Germany. Editor(s): Pragst, Fritz; Aderjan, Rolf. GTFCh-Symposium: Toxikologische Aspekte der Sterbehilfe--Neue Drogen: Chemische, Analytische und Toxikologische Aspekte, Beitraege zum Symposium der Gesellschaft fuer Toxikologische und Forensische Chemie, 12th, Mosbach, Germany, Apr. 26-28, 2001 (2001), Meeting Date 2001, 156-161. Publisher: Verlag Dr. Dieter Helm, Heppenheim, Germany CODEN: 69CPGU Conference written in English. CAN 138:19085 AN 2002:394040 CAPLUS

Abstract

a-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone (PPP) and 4'-methoxy-a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MOPPP), new designer drugs of the a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone type, have appeared on the illicit drug market. In the meantime, PPP has been listed in the German Act of Controlled Substances. This work used gas chromatog.-mass spectrometry to study the urinary metabolites of PPP and MOPPP after administration to rats. PPP was predominantly metabolized by hydroxylation of the pyrrolidine ring, followed by dehydrogenation to the corresponding lactam or by hydroxylation of the arom. ring. MOPPP was almost completely metabolized, predominantly by O-demethylation and/or by hydroxylation of the pyrrolidine ring, followed by dehydrogenation to the corresponding lactam, and to a minor extent by hydroxylation of the arom. ring. The phenolic OH groups were partly conjugated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and hepatic metabolism of designer drugs of the amphetamine (ecstasy), piperazine, and pyrrolidinophenone types. A synopsis. Maurer, Hans H.; Kraemer, Thomas; Springer, Dietmar; Staack, Roland F. Department of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (2004), 26(2), 127-131. Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, CODEN: TDMODV ISSN: 0163-4356. Journal; General Review written in English. CAN 141:133389 AN 2004:397772 CAPLUS

Abstract

A review. Designer drugs of the amphetamine type (eg, MDMA, MDEA, MDA), of the new benzyl or Ph piperazine type (eg, BZP, MDBP, mCPP, TFMPP, MeOPP), or of the pyrrolidinophenone type (eg, PPP, MOPPP, MDPPP, MPPP, MPHP) have gained popularity and notoriety as rave drugs. These drugs produce feelings of euphoria and energy and a desire to socialize. Although in the corresponding drug scene designer drugs have the reputation of being safe, studies in rats and primates in combination with human epidemiol. investigations indicate potential risks to humans. Thus, a variety of adverse effects were assocd. with the use/abuse of this class of drugs in humans, including a life-threatening serotonin syndrome, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and psychopathol. Metabolites were suspected to contribute to some of the toxic effects. Therefore, knowledge of the metab. is a prerequisite for toxicol. risk assessment. The metabolic pathways, the involvement of cytochrome P 450 isoenzymes in the main pathways, and their roles in hepatic clearance are described for designer drugs of different groups. In summary, polymorphically expressed CYP2D6 was the major enzyme catalyzing the major metabolic steps of the studied piperazine- and pyrrolidinophenone-derived designer drugs. However, it cannot be concluded at the moment whether this genetic polymorphism is of clin. relevance.
 
Do you have the full text of either of those articles, hugo24?
 
Negatives re methamphetamines

I have admired these since Abbott Labs created the perfect drug: Desbutol. Ten Mg Methamphetamine Hcl with an attached Nembutol to make the experience either more mellow or to use at bed time. I see it as a crime that these types of drugs are becoming impossible to find in any form. Is there any hope of some revival of this drug being available?
 
Of course pure Amphetamine exists, what do you think Adderall and Dexedrine are? This is hardly the correct thread for asking that sort of thing...
 
It depends who you know and where you come from as to whether you can find it these days. But yes it does still exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top